guyandarifle

If you are a bad guy "living by the sword" and you are going to be "dying by the sword" the immediate question is...who is holding the other sword?   Answer: someone who is defending themselves from people that "live by the sword".   A movie quote from a similar vein; "Those without swords can still die upon them."

While it's quite possible that was stated somewhere by someone (God knows the media wouldn't know any better or even, as Robert suggests above, were complicit in pushing a SYG angle) I believe it's FL law, nonwithstanding SYG, that if someone claims SD and there's no probable cause for an arrest the person has to be released. In truth I don't know if it's all that different in other states. I know a person can't simply be held indefinitely without being charged.

If I understand how things work that would be much more difficult in a Castle Doctrine state than otherwise. (Assuming of course you were cleared criminally)

I've never understood how SYG kept coming up in this case. The defense is obviously going to have to stick to the story as told by Zimmerman, right? The story he told about what happened (unless I'm badly mistaken) was that he was on his back getting beaten when he deployed his weapon. Whatever decision comes out in court about that claim there's no "ground being stood" when you're claiming to be on your back getting throttled. This is going to be decided as a straight-up SD case, one way or the other.

The first thing I'd note is that if you find yourself in a position where your gun or ammunition are being called into question things aren't going well already. What we're talking about are "complicating" factors. The first example (it being from the 70's and all) is all but dead in any realistic sense. As opposed to 30yrs ago ammo isn't just "ammo" anymore and factory ammunition intended for SD is squeezing just about every last FPS they can without blowing things up and some of them are doing it with proprietary bullets. If one were so inclined a pretty good argument could be made these days that some factory ammo in common SD calibers actually exceeds what can be safely handloaded by a civilian with component bullets and cannister powders. Having said this it'd still cost money to make a fool of the prosecuter's attempts to make the arguement. The Bias case (it's kinda funny that "bias" is the actual case name) is predicated entirely on the galactic outlier of the handload in question bearing almost no discernable similarity to anything any of us would load. In other words there is no load any of us would carry that would have not left GSR 'O Plenty on Lise Bias under the described circumstances and that case would have played out nothing like it did. The above observation of the Bias case isn't without caveats regarding SD handloads. What I'm really trying to show is that even with cases to cite we have to go way, WAY off the beaten path. A LOT of things need to have gotten very much sideways for someone to find themselves seriously having to defend the use of handloads (or X pistol modification or Y caliber) but people have been struck by meteorites too so the only certain way to avoid the risk is to avoid the issue by keeping things "standardized". Honestly though modern factory SD rounds are damn good and if one is a handloader anyway it's not any real hassle to handload for practice and carry factory.

Do you want a ridiculous caliber or a ridiculous gun? A .500 S&W is all kinds of crazy as a caliber but when you really get down to it's just a really, REALLY big revolver. Once you get used to the size of it an X-Frame doesn't really stand out until you pull the trigger. A .50 DE OTOH is pretty crazy just sitting there. It's got an innate funkiness to it that goes beyond just a .44 revolver that's been eating babies and drinking tiger's blood, which for all it's size and power is basically all the .500 has going for it. I will say that, as crazy as it sounds, a .460/.500 is probably a lot more "practical". It's pretty easy to load them up or down and most every one I've heard of has been quite accurate.

This would be a good time to list all those things you DO consider to be "Rights" that have been shown to be totally outside the scope of government regulation. I'll think you'll find yourself conceding that just because something is viewed as a Right hasn't kept it immune from what they call "reasonable regulation". (when you've got another minute to ponder things on your hands toss around why in states where there is no permit requirement at all it's often referred to as "Constitutional carry") As to the overall gist of your postings I'll reiterate what I've said earlier; while you may very well consider yourself a pro-gun type and are sincerely concerned about things like safety and positive interaction with the public at large you are terribly naive in how the anti's operate. In court they've been getting their butt kicked. (Shall issue, Castle Doctrine, Heller, etc) Their best means of getting anywhere at this point is to wail mightily at anything that ever goes wrong and implore that actions be taken "for the greater good". This only works to the extent they want if gun owners get all self concious and WILLINGLY surrender ground. Don't be one of those guys. As an aside I see no harm in doing a better job of educating those that are already in a class environment and paying for their time. (Actually it's that it varies so much. I thought the guy in my carry class did a pretty good job but I've heard stories about other places...not so much)

If you're really talking SHTF for $600 or so you can have a Glock with conversion barrel that'll fire either the .40 or 9mm, whichever is at hand. (If you really wanted to fudge it you could still be under $900 and throw in a .22 rimfire conversion...all for less than many 1911's alone) Also, if the situation were bad enough that maintenance was iffy, even such rudimetary things as lubrication, then I'd much prefer a Glock. I've got a 1911 and a Sig Elite and prefer "shooting" either to my Glocks. For the scenario presented it'd be a Glock.

Any responsible gun owner should HATE hearing about something getting sideways with permit holders (or gun owners in general for that matter) but you seem terribly myopic on how those that would try to put the screws to ALL of us work. This is to say, have us concede, incrementally, ground we already have that's veiled as "for the greater good". There is no true defense against stupid. We are forced to live with it in some individuals everywhere every day. Don't give ground on their account.

True, but that's a state thing. I'm pretty sure there's at least a handfull of states that have "Constitutional Carry" as it's sometimes referred. (Sometimes called "Vermont Carry" as that's where it was first adopted unless I'm sorely mistaken)

The boldened above is the only one that really carries much water IMO. Specifically for some others: What specifically do you mean by "stronger" BGC? What exactly are you advocating? WHAT "gun show loophole"? If you are advocating all firearm transactions must go through a tracked FFL so be it but the idea of a (current) GSL is entirely erroneous.

I will carry what I want (well, there's a few things I want I'd like to carry but don't have...maybe someday) thank you, as I assume you will. "I just have never had a "coherent" explanation of the purpose or practical use of a trigger safety." I gave you a quite coherent and congenial explanation of the purpose of a trigger safety. As for your hypothetical 2:00 AM scenario (which moved the goal posts from your original statement) you have perfectly described a negligent discharge which has always been and shall ever be USER ERROR. For that matter once you invoke the "unintentional" you are logically bound to it's application in all directions. For instance, what if you had "unintentionally" left the safety off to begin with? For that matter, what if you "unintentionally" forget to take the safety off in the stress of the moment and get yourself killed? (See how hypotheticals work?) How many ND's have 1911's accounted for over the years (including the subject of this thread) which have a manual AND passive (grip) safety? In fact, while we're on a roll, how about all those rifle/shotgun ND's? ALL of those involved weapons with manual safties. Look, if YOU are uncomfortable without a manual safety it's no big deal...your weapon choice is yours. Your problem is that you came here with this; "I don't know what model gun he was carrying, but I would bet that it was a trigger safety "safety-less" gun." and were wrong. I'm not going to give you a hard time about it but you were wrong. Then you doubled down by casting derisions on a whole swath of weapon platforms and by association (intentional or not) those who would carry them. Sorry dude, but taking heat for that isn't something you get to play "victim" over.

It's nothing more than having a system where a weapon is prevented from firing unless the trigger is depressed in a manner consistent with an intentional pull of said trigger. The intended upside is that one doesn't have to train to manipulate a safety while facing a rather time intensive/high stress/life-and-death situation. Some simply aren't comfortable without that added step. The real upshot in weapon safety however doesn't change with weapon platform; far and away the biggest "safety" involved with ANY weapon is between the ears of the user.

DA: Robbery victim, 65, justified in shooting of teens on trail | Regional: Berks - Home

When I ordered my Crossbreed Supertuck holster I went ahead and got one of their gun belts too. No complaints. The only other belt I wear is a Wilderness Instructor. If you've got the cheddar to burn I've never heard a single bad thing about Beltman but the above are cheaper and I'm happy so far with both.